113-115 College Main will be spared. I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further.Chrundle the Great said:
Only if you promise to tear down Johnny's bar first, but instead of parking I'm thinking nail salon.
Or redi-clinic.
Chrundle the Great said:
Yeah I was kidding, and I agree with you mostly. I don't want to abolish all zoning; I've lived in Houston. We can amend my first sentence to do "whatever within the ordinances/permits established originally"
What I don't like about the four unrelated rule is it goes after property owners the city was more than happy to approve plans, approve permits, and accept higher property taxes only to come back years later and say eh 5 seems like a lot of people, your house needs to be 80% occupancy from now on or else we'll fine you into submission.
If this is signed into law, will COCS pass a "no more than 4" to protect our neighborhoods?Quote:
That's the moral hazard of a "dead letter law" right there. There's no innocent parties in the whole matter, except folks that bought their forever home and watched the neighborhood transform around them in spite of the rules.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
GoSummer said:
I'm a rental property owner and a parent of college students and I support SB 1567. The current situation in College Station isn't workingstudents are being unfairly targeted and harassed. My tenants have had people taking pictures of their cars, which is completely inappropriate and unsettling.
Because of the city's ordinance, we have a bedroom empty (in an older home, not an "Ag Shack") It just doesn't make sense. College Station is singled out because other cities, like Austin, have already moved away from these kinds of discriminatory rules. If there are real issues like too many cars on the street or too much noise, then the city should create ordinances that directly address those thingsnot ones that unfairly limit who can live together.
Most college students do not even want to share a bedroom, so I think the concerns of 9-12 in a house are unfounded. The solution of building more high-rise apartments does not work for all college students. There will always be students who want to live in houses near campus. People who bought homes near campus shouldn't be surprised to have students as neighbors.
So much this! ^^^^^^Chrundle the Great said:
Let property owners do what they want with their property
dubi said:If this is signed into law, will COCS pass a "no more than 4" to protect our neighborhoods?Quote:
That's the moral hazard of a "dead letter law" right there. There's no innocent parties in the whole matter, except folks that bought their forever home and watched the neighborhood transform around them in spite of the rules.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Stucco said:
The current solution is not sustainable and will eventually fall either due to this bill or a lawsuit.
Any replacement solution is bad because it will frustrate a larger set of residents and the property rights folks. (no street parking, no more than 2 per bedroom, no more than 1 lease per property)
A repeal without replacement is also bad because it will accelerate the ag shacks and frustrate the neighborhood integrity folks.
This is a loser of an issue. The only real solution is to fix the housing crisis as fast as humanly possible. The best interim solution I see is an ordinance that you can only replace a structure with a similar structure.
Bob Yancy said:Stucco said:
The current solution is not sustainable and will eventually fall either due to this bill or a lawsuit.
Any replacement solution is bad because it will frustrate a larger set of residents and the property rights folks. (no street parking, no more than 2 per bedroom, no more than 1 lease per property)
A repeal without replacement is also bad because it will accelerate the ag shacks and frustrate the neighborhood integrity folks.
This is a loser of an issue. The only real solution is to fix the housing crisis as fast as humanly possible. The best interim solution I see is an ordinance that you can only replace a structure with a similar structure.
Largely agree. It's a conundrum. Interrelated with all this is a constrained housing supply. We need to be building more housing, like yesterday. If supply remains constrained and this bill passes, it'll be really bad for existing neighborhoods.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
The older neighborhoods near campus do not have deed restrictions so that is, IMO, a big issue.Quote:
Do you believe it will be really bad for existing neighborhoods that have deed restrictions?
And why not let the free market do what it does best and get the city out of the way?
It is my opinion the student population should be as close to campus as possible and as dense as possible.
hopeandrealchange said:Bob Yancy said:Stucco said:
The current solution is not sustainable and will eventually fall either due to this bill or a lawsuit.
Any replacement solution is bad because it will frustrate a larger set of residents and the property rights folks. (no street parking, no more than 2 per bedroom, no more than 1 lease per property)
A repeal without replacement is also bad because it will accelerate the ag shacks and frustrate the neighborhood integrity folks.
This is a loser of an issue. The only real solution is to fix the housing crisis as fast as humanly possible. The best interim solution I see is an ordinance that you can only replace a structure with a similar structure.
Largely agree. It's a conundrum. Interrelated with all this is a constrained housing supply. We need to be building more housing, like yesterday. If supply remains constrained and this bill passes, it'll be really bad for existing neighborhoods.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Do you believe it will be really bad for existing neighborhoods that have deed restrictions?
And why not let the free market do what it does best and get the city out of the way?
It is my opinion the student population should be as close to campus as possible and as dense as possible.
I didn't come here to argue or be attacked, but felt it was important to share my viewpoint and experience. You are making assumptions about where I live, how I maintain my property, and my level of community involvement that are all false. I agree that the bill should be statewide and not just targeting College Station. I was stating the reason we are singled out is because other cities have already realized this doesn't work.scd88 said:GoSummer said:
I'm a rental property owner and a parent of college students and I support SB 1567. The current situation in College Station isn't workingstudents are being unfairly targeted and harassed. My tenants have had people taking pictures of their cars, which is completely inappropriate and unsettling.
Because of the city's ordinance, we have a bedroom empty (in an older home, not an "Ag Shack") It just doesn't make sense. College Station is singled out because other cities, like Austin, have already moved away from these kinds of discriminatory rules. If there are real issues like too many cars on the street or too much noise, then the city should create ordinances that directly address those thingsnot ones that unfairly limit who can live together.
Most college students do not even want to share a bedroom, so I think the concerns of 9-12 in a house are unfounded. The solution of building more high-rise apartments does not work for all college students. There will always be students who want to live in houses near campus. People who bought homes near campus shouldn't be surprised to have students as neighbors.
There's nothing discriminatory, but you're a landlord so your viewpoint is to be expected.
Do you live here?
Do you maintain your properties here or just let the weeds and lawn go?
If kids are held responsible for being decent neighbors, they probably would be.
I have no issue with the kids around me.
I've had more challenges with ****ty, out of town landlords who don't give a rats ass about the community. That's a bigger issue than the kids.
Why is the state voting on a bill that clearly targets College Station? That's ****ing moronic. The latest bill is so biased it's ridiculous.
Nobody challenges more than 4. We aren't the only community that does that. Go to Austin and see how crappy the near campus housing is. No parking as they allow ADU's. Crappy yard upkeep.
It's you landlords that are a bigger problem. Look in the damn mirror.
ETA - blaming the people who live in the neighborhoods is pretty rich. Yeah, we are the problem. Our houses are the one that look like dumps. Clearly.
They could - but this would impact established living situations, and that's rough on everyone involved.foo00 said:
I only read the parts of the bill that were posted here and have no clue on zoning laws. But if stucco was right and it "only" restricts those 5 ways of limitation.. if the City is concerned with 12 people in a 4 bedroom house as you say why not fix the zoning to be 1.5 persons per bedroom so 4bed=6 (ex 2 parents and 4 kids)? Or 1.75x (2 parents+5 kids)? If you don't specifically call out anything with age, blood relation, marriage, etc then it would be OK right?
Or are zoning changes only forward acting such that it's back to the "unless you knock it down" you're grandfathered?
foo00 said:
I only read the parts of the bill that were posted here and have no clue on zoning laws. But if stucco was right and it "only" restricts those 5 ways of limitation.. if the City is concerned with 12 people in a 4 bedroom house as you say why not fix the zoning to be 1.5 persons per bedroom so 4bed=6 (ex 2 parents and 4 kids)? Or 1.75x (2 parents+5 kids)? If you don't specifically call out anything with age, blood relation, marriage, etc then it would be OK right?
Or are zoning changes only forward acting such that it's back to the "unless you knock it down" you're grandfathered?
Bob Yancy said:hopeandrealchange said:Bob Yancy said:Stucco said:
The current solution is not sustainable and will eventually fall either due to this bill or a lawsuit.
Any replacement solution is bad because it will frustrate a larger set of residents and the property rights folks. (no street parking, no more than 2 per bedroom, no more than 1 lease per property)
A repeal without replacement is also bad because it will accelerate the ag shacks and frustrate the neighborhood integrity folks.
This is a loser of an issue. The only real solution is to fix the housing crisis as fast as humanly possible. The best interim solution I see is an ordinance that you can only replace a structure with a similar structure.
Largely agree. It's a conundrum. Interrelated with all this is a constrained housing supply. We need to be building more housing, like yesterday. If supply remains constrained and this bill passes, it'll be really bad for existing neighborhoods.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Do you believe it will be really bad for existing neighborhoods that have deed restrictions?
And why not let the free market do what it does best and get the city out of the way?
It is my opinion the student population should be as close to campus as possible and as dense as possible.
Given the higher occupancy the new law will allow, I believe outside investors will snatch up homes and make de facto Agshacks out of them. We'll be forced to enact new parking ordinances and those ordinances will impact and inconvenience everyone, permanent residents and students alike.
We have to contain occupancy somehow, because the sheer number of cars will render the streets unnavigable by public safety vehicles and routine traffic.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
hopeandrealchange said:Bob Yancy said:hopeandrealchange said:Bob Yancy said:Stucco said:
The current solution is not sustainable and will eventually fall either due to this bill or a lawsuit.
Any replacement solution is bad because it will frustrate a larger set of residents and the property rights folks. (no street parking, no more than 2 per bedroom, no more than 1 lease per property)
A repeal without replacement is also bad because it will accelerate the ag shacks and frustrate the neighborhood integrity folks.
This is a loser of an issue. The only real solution is to fix the housing crisis as fast as humanly possible. The best interim solution I see is an ordinance that you can only replace a structure with a similar structure.
Largely agree. It's a conundrum. Interrelated with all this is a constrained housing supply. We need to be building more housing, like yesterday. If supply remains constrained and this bill passes, it'll be really bad for existing neighborhoods.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Do you believe it will be really bad for existing neighborhoods that have deed restrictions?
And why not let the free market do what it does best and get the city out of the way?
It is my opinion the student population should be as close to campus as possible and as dense as possible.
Given the higher occupancy the new law will allow, I believe outside investors will snatch up homes and make de facto Agshacks out of them. We'll be forced to enact new parking ordinances and those ordinances will impact and inconvenience everyone, permanent residents and students alike.
We have to contain occupancy somehow, because the sheer number of cars will render the streets unnavigable by public safety vehicles and routine traffic.
Respectfully
Yancy '95
If we are thinking about new ordinances that will inconvenience everyone, might I suggest we change our thinking and work toward ordnances that help more than they hurt. And I think it is a well known fact that our fine city already has more ordinances than can currently be enforced. I am one of the rental property owners that plays by the rules all the while I watch others being much more profitable while thumbing their nose at the city.
On another note many homes on the south side are to the point they need to be scraped. Property taxes have made these old homes to expensive to get enough rent to cover expenses. The land value is so high no one other than an investor can afford them. We have a catch 22 on our hands and the old school thoughts and actions of the city don't work.
Thank you for communicating with us here the way you do Mr. Yancey.
Tailgate88 said:
Texas House passes Senate Bill 1567; restricting cities occupancy rules
https://www.kbtx.com/2025/05/29/texas-house-passes-senate-bill-1567-restricting-cities-occupancy-rules/
GoSummer said:
I'm a rental property owner and a parent of college students and I support SB 1567. The current situation in College Station isn't workingstudents are being unfairly targeted and harassed. My tenants have had people taking pictures of their cars, which is completely inappropriate and unsettling.
Because of the city's ordinance, we have a bedroom empty (in an older home, not an "Ag Shack") It just doesn't make sense. College Station is singled out because other cities, like Austin, have already moved away from these kinds of discriminatory rules. If there are real issues like too many cars on the street or too much noise, then the city should create ordinances that directly address those thingsnot ones that unfairly limit who can live together.
Most college students do not even want to share a bedroom, so I think the concerns of 9-12 in a house are unfounded. The solution of building more high-rise apartments does not work for all college students. There will always be students who want to live in houses near campus. People who bought homes near campus shouldn't be surprised to have students as neighbors.
texagbeliever said:
Then dont grow if you cant support it with housing. Or sell some of the land for someone else to build the housing.
texagbeliever said:
Then dont grow if you cant support it with housing. Or sell some of the land for someone else to build the housing.
texagbeliever said:
Then dont grow if you cant support it with housing. Or sell some of the land for someone else to build the housing.
Bob Yancy said:
Honorable Governor Abbott,
Please veto SB 1567. This bill, if passed, would:
1. Facilitate Investor Buyout of Texas Homes. SB1567 incentivizes investors and accelerates the shift of homeownership away from families. This is in direct opposition to what you have said you want to promote: Texas residents owning their own homes.
2. Target specific municipalities. Why doesn't this bill apply to all municipalities, today and in the future? The bill's exclusion of most municipalities and its selective focus on a few (i.e. Bryan and College Station) highlights a strategic case of "bracketing" - and is designed to target specific areas and stakeholders. This raises concerns about its intent, fairness and constitutionality.
Thank you for your dedicated and continuous service to Texans and Texas, Governor.
Your attention to this matter and my previous communications to your office, is much appreciated, sir.
Respectfully
Bob Yancy '95
City Council, Place 5
College Station, Texas
Byancy@cstx.gov
Chrundle the Great said:
Why do you keep saying it unfairly applies to BCS and not others? I don't see that in the bill. Is it because the bill says it is only applicable to Home-rule municipalities? There's 393 home rule municipalities and I think they represent 95% or higher of all cities with 5,000+ people. I think it makes sense for this not to apply to smaller 2 horse towns, but I'd bet it applies to 90% of Texans.
